"For the final and complete disposal of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants, and without admitting the plaintiff's claims, the parties agreed that defendant 2 (respondent 2 in this application - A.W.) would pay the plaintiff beyond the letter of the law, and despite the fact that it is clear to all involved that it has no responsibility in connection with the activity of defendant 1 in the sum of ILS 10,000" (paragraph 1 of the settlement agreement).
It was further agreed between the parties (in clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement) as follows:
"In addition, beyond the letter of the law and without notice of the plaintiff's claims, and in particular after it was agreed and clarified that defendant 2 had no responsibility in connection with defendant 1 and its activities, defendant 2 provided the plaintiff with confirmation of the closure of the defendant's account and the reset of the balance of the debt."
- Subsequently, the Applicant filed another claim in the Haifa Magistrate's Court (Civil Claim in Rapid Hearing 30923-10-22) [Nevo], in which she sued the two Respondents, in which she claimed that Respondent 2 is the representative of Respondent 1 in Israel and is authorized to receive court documents on her behalf. In her decision of January 4,2023, the Honorable Justice Baum noted that in accordance with what was claimed in the statement of defense on behalf of defendant 2 (respondent 2 here), it does not serve as an address for the delivery of court documents for defendant 1, and instructed the applicant to prove that she made delivery to defendant 1 (respondent 1 here). The Applicant filed an application to recognize Respondent 2 as a representative of Respondent 1 in accordance with Regulation 163(c). In her decision in a note dated January 11,2023, the Honorable Justice Baum ruled as follows: "The fact that defendant 2 provides services to defendant 1's clients does not make it qualified to receive court orders on its behalf. By January 31,2023, an application for an off-bounds invention permit will be submitted to defendant 1, after locating her address abroad.(hereinafter: "The Honorable Justice Baum's Decision")
Following this decision, the Applicant filed a motion to delete the claim against Respondent 1.